Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isocentric technique


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Isocentric technique

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is completely unsourced and nonsensical. It gives little information about the topic. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G1 and A1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not speedy delete I have contested the speedy deletion as the topic is not nonsense: isocentre is a perfectly legitimate term in radiation therapy and "isocentric technique" scores 2500 hits on Google Books. The article undoubtedly needs cleaning up, but that's quite different.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * G1 applies only to the article as is, not the topic. If, for example, I were to write an article on rabbits and only put "hoppity hop hop" that would still qualify as G1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * G1 applies to "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history." This is not the case here -- I was easily able to determine what the article is about.  As I said, it badly needs cleaning up.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probable keep, possibly expand or possibly merge with Radiation therapy. It was clearly never a G1, as it was in plain English (G1 is for articles which are all gibberish or incoherent text - not articles which may be factually nonsense, but are written in correct English). And, like Sergeant Cribb, I was quickly able to discover what it is about -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Could this page be userfied to someone who has the time and knowledge about this topic to improve it? I used Wikichecker to see who have made the most edits to Radiation therapy and I found Graham87 with 82 edits, he appears to be totally blind and doesn't list it in any of his interests.  Next was Jellytussle this user had 36 edits and all of his/her edits seem to be related to cancer.  I think Jellytussle would be a good candidate, but he/she is a very inactive editor right now. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I didn't have problem understanding what it said. It's stuff being taught to students, so uncertain if it acually requires references per Scientific citation guidelines, but a glance at PubMed pulls up hundreds of articles, though largely they just assume the reader knows what it is. Narayanese (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is written for the reader, would you be willing to rewrite this page in a way that is understandable to everyone. The page needs to define what the beams are, it needs to either describe or wikilink to gantry and collimator, and it should describe the modern linac.  Is the isocentric technique the only technique?  What is it used for specifically.  What is radiation treatment (this is wikilinked, which is ok but the article should show in some way).  Does anybody know what the image that was once included on this page was or should the red arrows, blue arrow, etc. be removed.  This page will probably be worth something if it can be changed in a way that leaves the reader with more answers than questions. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The medical courses I've taken are few and basic, so I've only briefly heard about this type of techniques. Found the image on a mirror site and tried to work around the sourcing issue. Narayanese (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.